Baseball Sucks

Obviously you know nothing about the MLB, because if you did, you'd know that the Tigers are not in the NL East, that on any given day any team could beat or be beaten by just about any other team (which to me seems like a competitive sport should be), and Oakland is a good team which right now deserves to be fighting for the top spot in the AL West. We'll see if they end up there in the end, but right now they're proving themselves well.

Personally I don't watch basketball or hockey (thanks to past years' Celtics and Bruins), but that doesn't mean I'm going to come on here and say either one is a stupid sport. Your post is just ignorant.

For the love of Pete, Gator, the season is two weeks old.  No one has played even 10% of their games.  Did you just wake up this morning loaded for bear?  Couldn't wait to hammer MLB for some perceived slight?  Take a better look at those standings while you're at it - The Detroit Tigers have been in the American League since 1901.

By the way, in your beloved NBA, why do they bother to play an 82 game regular season and not even eliminate half the teams.  Why not just have a big tournament at the end and invite them all?

Wow. It is wwaaaayyy too early to make blanket statements about MLB. There are many teams that have gotten off to slow starts but are "capable" (your word) of dominating. Teams like Boston, The Yankees, Detroit, The Cubs, and a couple of teams no one is talking about (Cincinnati? the Dodgers?) will all go on a huge run some time this year. It'll be fun to watch them zoom up the standings.

I'm surprised that you did not mention the Brewers, who are 8-4 with two road wins against both the Mets and the Cubs. That's a great start, perhaps even a dominating start, and they'll be better when Yovani Gallardo gets  healthy.

I'm not so sure that having dominating clubs is the sign of a healthy league, either. Consider the NBA, which you seem to like. Which conference has more game:  the East, Which has the top two teams by record and a lot of train wrecks, or the West, which has parity? Hey, when you've got nine great teams within a few games of each other, you have to call it parity. I like the West, don't you?

I like parity, too. Parity lets new teams emerge every year, like the Packers or the Hornets. Parity keeps things fresh. I wish there was more parity in MLB, but baseball has the biggest gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" of any major sports league. How can you say there's parity in the MLB when the Yankees are dropping a quarter billion dollars on a single player! That's like more than the combined payrolls of the four poorest teams in the league. Until there is revenue sharing and a salary cap in Baseball, the very concept of parity in the major leagues is laughable!

Peace.

I think way too much is made of "parity."  IMO, Parity is a concept which is best seen from season to season, with different teams surging to the top and others falling to the bottom.  Which is more watchable, a season where everyone is within a few games of each other, or a season where a perennial doormat finally makes good?  I know there are millions who are waiting for the Cubbies to make that story finally come true.  But if everyone's average, then in the long run, who's going to care?  Sure, it seems like the Yankees and Braves are always going to rule the world, but isn't it more interesting to see the upstart Tigers (prior to 2006), Rockies, or Marlins finally break through?  And even better when they beat the Goliath?  If everyone in MLB finished 81-81, what does that prove?